Background: For my brief I have to argue that the trial court should not have awarded summary judgment. At issue is whether a certain contract is enforceable. There is a very well defined three prong test for assessing "reasonableness" where the contract has to pass all three test (prong A, prong B, prong C). At the lower court, the court determined that the agreement at issue flunked part one (prong A) of the test but said B and C were reasonable. Thus, I need to argue that there are issues of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment (with prong A). But since it is reviewed de novo I need to argue all three prongs, in some form. Our instructors want us to frame all of A, B, and C in SJ terms whereas I'd like to frame only A in strict SJ terms. I'd like to frame B and C in stronger terms but, in the actual text argue in the alternative and state the SJ terms.